increase minimum versions to match jwst

[braingram]

This PR updates a few dependencies to match those in jwst:

• asdf-astropy to 0.6.0 (pending increase minimum version of asdf-astropy jwst#9177)
• asdf to 3.3
• astropy to 6.1

Tasks

• update or add relevant tests
• update relevant docstrings and / or docs/ page
• Does this PR change any API used downstream? (if not, label with no-changelog-entry-needed)
  • write news fragment(s) in changes/: echo "changed something" > changes/<PR#>.<changetype>.rst (see below for change types)
  • run jwst regression tests with this branch installed ("git+https://github.com/<fork>/stdatamodels@<branch>")

news fragment change types...

• changes/<PR#>.feature.rst: new feature
• changes/<PR#>.bugfix.rst: fixes an issue
• changes/<PR#>.doc.rst: documentation change
• changes/<PR#>.removal.rst: deprecation or removal of public API
• changes/<PR#>.misc.rst: infrastructure or miscellaneous change

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 78.21%. Comparing base (4e83608) to head (153f643).
Report is 3 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #399      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   78.16%   78.21%   +0.04%     
==========================================
  Files         115      115              
  Lines        5144     5155      +11     
==========================================
+ Hits         4021     4032      +11     
  Misses       1123     1123              

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[emolter]

LGTM, but a question. Is there value in having upper pins here, too? I see an upper pin on asdf in jwst specifying <5

[braingram]

LGTM, but a question. Is there value in having upper pins here, too? I see an upper pin on asdf in jwst specifying <5

Thanks!

I'd say yes and no. Adding an upper pin if we know there will be incompatible changes that we expect will break the code seems worthwhile so that the old versions on pypi don't suddenly start failing when dependencies are updated. However since this is more a "library" than an "application" (like jwst) having as loose as possible pins is helpful for building environments. If we don't have an expectation that the newer versions of dependencies will break this package I'd say we can leave off the upper pins. For asdf in particular there are no plans for breaking changes in 5 that would impact stdatamodels (although the plan for 5.0 is not finalized).